Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that?

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 05:31:30 PM by Don Haines »

Logged

The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

I agree that it 'pinches' the market. I think Canon's likely response is a 100-400 MkII. With the Tamron 150-600 being similar to the current 100-400 in that range, and ok at the long end, if Canon brings a new 100-400 with a level of improvement similar to that of the 70-200 II, that would force a choice between an ok 150-600 or an excellent 100-400. The latter will cost a lot more, but that won't bother Canon.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

The argument isn't that it's not possible...its that if someone did it, for that price, would it be marketable?

I'd be willing to bet that Tamron has already cut some corners with the 150-600. We know Canon does this with their zoom lenses...instead of 600mm, it would be something like 149mm-590mm. That immediately shaves a bit off the necessary front element size. The filter thread size is 95mm, which right off the bat indicates that the front element can't actually be the 95.24mm it would have to be in order to support true f/6.3 at exactly 600mm. That's a reduction in objective element size of about 5% right off the bat. That shaves down the necessary size for all the entrance pupil elements as well.

Prime lenses are generally designed to more exacting specifications. You don't have to worry about making tradeoffs to support a zoom range...you optimize the lens design exactly for the focal length your building. That's the entire point of a prime...to extract the maximum quality out of a given focal length. So, at least assuming you want a 600mm f/5.6 lens and not a 590mm f/6 lens, that immediately cuts out any easy reductions in element size that might save you a few percent here and there to reduce the cost of the lens. Then you get into how larger optics are harder to correct, etc. etc. and the costs just start rising from there.

I guess it would really boil down to what level of IQ you think your customers would find acceptable. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 that had worse CA than the 150-600 f/5-6.3 might indeed sell, to the people who insist on having a prime. Personally I think the customers in this bracket would go with the best option for the best price...that's kind of what it's all about...so I don't think a 600mm f/5.6 with worse quality than the Tamron 150-600 would really have a market.

Also, keep in mind, Canon's prime lens with a 107mm objective element costs $6800...the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II. Granted, that pushes lens design to the upper extreme of high quality, and employs the most advanced optical technologies known to the DSLR market...but still, the vast majority of that cost is the glass.

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that?

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers. I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that?

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers. I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.

So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.

he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).

Just to touch on this point.....your friend is wrong....I own the 100-400, 600II, 300II and now the 200-400. The 300II with the 2.0TCIII and the 200-400 at 560 with internal engaged are both much sharper than the 100-400 and therefore much sharper than the new Tamron. As far as actual centre of the frame (most used for wildlife shooting due to cropping all the time) the 300II + 2.0TCIII and the 200-400w1.4TC are on par with the bare 600II. Tough to believe but true none the less. The 200-400 may lag a little behind (and isn't quite 600mm) but the 300II and 2.0III is for sure on par. The 400f/2.8ISII and the 1.4TCIII would be at least equal to this also.

So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

Exactly. Meanwhile, the reaction of the majority of dSLR users would be, "$2K for just one lens?!? That's crazy...I spent half that, and I got a camera and two lenses!!"

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

Exactly. Meanwhile, the reaction of the majority of dSLR users would be, "$2K for just one lens?!? That's crazy...I spent half that, and I got a camera and two lenses!!"

I was shooting at a birthday party last night and pulled out the 600EX. That prompted the following conversation...Party-goer: Is that an old camera?Me: It's out of date, I'm going to replace it soon....Party-goer: The new cameras all have flashes. The good ones pop up and are real good.Me: Good to know, I'll have to check that out.

he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).

Just to touch on this point.....your friend is wrong....I own the 100-400, 600II, 300II and now the 200-400. The 300II with the 2.0TCIII and the 200-400 at 560 with internal engaged are both much sharper than the 100-400 and therefore much sharper than the new Tamron. As far as actual centre of the frame (most used for wildlife shooting due to cropping all the time) the 300II + 2.0TCIII and the 200-400w1.4TC are on par with the bare 600II. Tough to believe but true none the less. The 200-400 may lag a little behind (and isn't quite 600mm) but the 300II and 2.0III is for sure on par. The 400f/2.8ISII and the 1.4TCIII would be at least equal to this also.

Here are two examples from the 300II and 2.0TCIII:

Thanks for sharing arbitrage

I just ordered 1.4TC III. Can't wait to put this on my 400mm f2.8 IS II. Will share some photos next week.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

Exactly. Meanwhile, the reaction of the majority of dSLR users would be, "$2K for just one lens?!? That's crazy...I spent half that, and I got a camera and two lenses!!"

So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

^-- The bolded part is my point in a nutshell. A 600mm f/5.6 prime has to have good IQ. It doesn't necessarily need to be as good as the 600/4, but it has to be better than the alternatives. For such a large objective element, that is no easy task...

I can't imagine a person who just spent $12,000 on a 600mm lens having anything good to say about a new 600mm lens that costs $1,200. You can be sure that each lens has advantages and disadvantages. If somebody would give me one lens or the other I would choose and suffer with the disadvantages of the $12,000 lens.

So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

Wow, I never really looked at the number of bodies vs EF lenses sold before. If I didn't enjoy my hobby so much, the expression "a fool and his money..." comes to mind. My wife probably thinks it, regardless of the enjoyment I get from the quality of the equipment and the challenge of using even a little of it's potential.

I was shooting at a birthday party last night and pulled out the 600EX. That prompted the following conversation...Party-goer: Is that an old camera?Me: It's out of date, I'm going to replace it soon....Party-goer: The new cameras all have flashes. The good ones pop up and are real good.Me: Good to know, I'll have to check that out.

Classic! The first time I used brought the 70-200 to a large gathering, a friend commented that it was so large and that I must be able to see very far with it. Well, not exactly....